Upload
lymien
View
224
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT For PublicationSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK__________________________________________
:In re : Chapter 11
:OLD CARCO LLC : Case No. 09-50002 (AJG)(F/K/A CHRYSLER LLC), et al., : Confirmed Cases
:Debtors. :
__________________________________________::
THE LIQUIDATION TRUST, ::
Plaintiff, :v. : Adv. No. 09-00505 (AJG)
:DAIMLER AG, et al., :
Defendants. :__________________________________________:
OPINION CONCERNING MOTION OF DEFENDANTS DAIMLER AG, DAIMLER NORTHAMERICA CORPORATION, AND DAIMLER INVESTMENTS US CORPORATION TO
DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
APPEARANCES:
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLPCounsel for the Daimler EntitiesNew York, New York
By: Alan S. Goudiss, Esq.James L. Garrity, Jr., Esq.Jaculin Aaron, Esq.Paula H. Anderson, Esq.K. Mallory Tosch, Esq.
BOIS, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLPCo-Counsel for the Daimler EntitiesNew York, New York
By: Jonathan D. Schiller, Esq.William S. Ohlemeyer, Esq.Tricia J. Bloomer, Esq.
2
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.Counsel for the Liquidation TrustHouston, Texas
By: Stephen D. Susman, Esq.Jacob W. Buchdahl, Esq.Edgar G. Sargent, Esq.Suyash Agrawal, Esq.
STUTZMAN, BROMBERG, ESSERMAN & PLIFKA, P.C.Special Counsel for the TrustDallas, Texas
By: Sander L. Esserman, Esq.Peter T. Brousseau, Esq.Peter D’Apice, Esq.
ARTHUR J. GONZALEZCHIEF UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
This adversary proceeding seeks to avoid certain transfers by a debtor under various
theories alleging constructive fraud. The Court previously dismissed the first amended
complaint filed in this adversary proceeding and afforded the plaintiff an opportunity to replead
certain of the asserted constructive fraudulent conveyance claims, which resulted in the filing of
the seconded amended complaint. In dismissing the first amended complaint with respect to
these constructive fraudulent conveyance claims, the Court found that the plaintiff failed to state
a claim for relief because of deficiencies in its allegations concerning the inadequacy of the
consideration in the transaction at issue. Specifically, the Court concluded that the plaintiff
failed to account for the total value of the consideration at issue by neglecting to mention, or
undervaluing, assets or benefits received as part of the overall integrated transaction.
Notwithstanding slight adjustments to certain of the values ascribed to some assets and
benefits transferred in the transaction at issue, the allegations of the second amended complaint
1On May 19, 2009, an additional affiliate filed a petition for relief under title 11.
3
continue to apply implausible valuations to some of the assets and benefits, and continue to
ignore other elements of value. Indeed, the implausible undervaluing of one asset alone
eliminates the alleged deficit in the calculation of what would constitute reasonably equivalent
value or fair consideration.
Therefore, the motion to dismiss is granted. In addition, because the Trust has been
afforded ample opportunity to plead a sustainable complaint and it has failed to do so, the
dismissal is with prejudice.
Procedural Background
On April 30, 2009, Old Carco LLC f/k/a Chrysler LLC (“CarCo”) and certain of its
domestic direct and indirect subsidiaries1 (collectively, the “Debtors”) filed for protection under
chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”). Pursuant to orders
entered by the Court, the Debtors’ cases were jointly administered for procedural purposes, in
accordance with Rule 1015(a) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. On May 5, 2009,
an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Creditors’ Committee”) of CarCo was
formed. On April 23, 2010, an order confirming the Second Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation
of Debtors and Debtors in Possession, as Modified (the “Debtors’ Plan”), was entered on the
docket of the jointly administered cases. The Debtors’ Plan became effective on April 30, 2010.
Pursuant to the Debtors’ Plan, a Liquidation Trust (the “Trust”) was formed.
This adversary proceeding commenced on August 17, 2009, when the Creditors’
Committee filed a complaint, which it subsequently amended by filing on January 4, 2010 the
first amended complaint, dated December 31, 2009 (the “First Amended Complaint”). On May
4
5, 2010, an order was entered substituting the Trust as plaintiff in this adversary proceeding, in
accordance with the terms of the Debtors’ Plan. On August 3, 2010, an order was entered
granting a motion that had been filed by the Daimler Entities (as hereinafter defined), on March
5, 2010, seeking dismissal of the First Amended Complaint. In that dismissal, certain of the
counts alleged were dismissed with prejudice. However, the Court afforded the Trust the
opportunity to replead, inter alia, certain of the counts alleging constructive fraud. On
September 27, 2010, the Trust filed the second amended complaint (the “Second Amended
Complaint”).
The Second Amended Complaint was filed against, inter alia, Daimler AG (“Daimler”), a
stock corporation organized under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, Daimler North
America Corporation (f/k/a DaimlerChrysler North America Holding Corporation) (“DCNAH”),
a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Daimler, and Daimler Investments US Corporation (f/k/a
DaimlerChrysler Holding Corporation) (“DC Holding”, and together with Daimler and DCNAH,
the “Daimler Entities”), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Daimler.
As in the First Amended Complaint, in the Second Amended Complaint, the Trust alleges
that Daimler stripped away valuable assets from CarCo prior to Daimler selling a controlling
interest in the Chrysler entities (the “Chrysler Companies”) to Cerberus Capital Management LP
(“Cerebus”). The Trust alleges that immediately prior to the sale to Cerebus, Daimler
engineered a complex restructuring of the Chrysler Companies, which transferred valuable assets
from CarCo to DCNAH and DC Holding for little or no consideration. The Trust seeks to
recover, as constructive fraudulent conveyances, the value of the transferred assets for the
2In that regard, also listed as defendants in the Complaint are John Does 1-50, representing any subsequenttransferees of assets that the Trust alleges were fraudulently transferred from the Debtor to Daimler, DCNAH and/orDC Holding.
3Many facts concerning this adversary proceeding, including the details of the underlying integratedtransaction at issue, are set forth in the July 27 Opinion, and familiarity with it is assumed.
4For the reasons set forth in the July 27 Opinion, the Court dismissed, with prejudice, all of the intentionalfraud counts and one of the constructive fraud counts.
5
Debtors’ estates.2
The Court issued an Opinion, dated July 27, 2010 (the “July 27 Opinion”), setting forth
the basis of its dismissal of the First Amended Complaint. Liquidation Trust v. Daimler AG (In
re Old CarCo), 435 B.R. 169 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010).3 In the July 27 Opinion, the Court
concluded that the restructuring of the Chrysler Companies, and Daimler’s ultimate sale of a
controlling interest in the Chrysler Companies, with its concomitant recapitalization of CarCo
and other of the Chrysler entities, comprised one integrated transaction. Id. at 183-85. Inasmuch
as the restructuring and recapitalization constituted a single integrated transaction, the Court
concluded that the Trust’s challenges to isolated elements of the restructuring as constituting
fraudulent transfers were faulty. Id. at 187. The Court stated that the challenged transfers could
not be properly valued without considering the entirety of the transaction, including the ultimate
sale of the controlling interest in the Chrysler Companies to Cerberus with the resulting cash
infusion into CarCo. Id. The Court further determined that the Trust failed to state a claim for
constructive fraud because it did “not include, or even reference, the significant value received
by CarCo pursuant to the overall transaction.” Id. The Court afforded the Trust the opportunity
to replead, inter alia, certain of the constructive fraud claims.4 The Court specifically cautioned
the Trust that, in any such newly filed complaint, it should “address the deficiencies in its
5The Trust had asserted this as an alternative argument in the First Amended Complaint. However, beforeundertaking to address the argument, the Court afforded the Trust an opportunity to address the deficiencies withrespect to the allegations concerning the putative inadequacy of the consideration transferred.
6
allegations concerning the consideration that CarCo received in the single integrated transaction,
including amplification as to all the assets received, as well as to clarify its position concerning
the valuation of assets, both for the assessment of the consideration received in the integrated
transaction and the insolvency analysis.” Id. at 190.
In filing the Second Amended Complaint, the Trust argued that even considering the
entirety of the restructuring and the sale of the controlling interest to Cerberus, CarCo received
consideration of lesser value than the assets that it transferred.5 In the Second Amended
Complaint the Trust attributes some value to certain of the assets to which it had not ascribed
any value in the First Amended Complaint. The Trust alleges that, even with the values that it
has now attributed to assets transferred, the consideration that CarCo received in the overall
transaction was inadequate, and that the shortfall in value was $1.695 billion.
On November 16, 2010, the Daimler Entities filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint, asserting that the allegations set forth therein, which concerned reasonably
equivalent value and fair consideration, are inadequate because they do not sufficiently take into
account all the elements of value received by CarCo in the overall transaction. The Daimler
Entities assert that the deficiencies in the allegations include understating certain values and
ignoring other value that CarCo received in the transaction. The Daimler Entities also maintain
that the Trust’s insolvency analysis is flawed.
The Trust contends that the motion to dismiss should be denied and that discovery should
proceed. The Trust argues that it has plausibly alleged insufficient consideration and insolvency.
6Following the Hearing, without seeking leave of Court, the Trust made additional submissions tosupplement its argument. The Daimler Entities oppose consideration of the supplemental submissions asprocedurally improper, while also arguing that the submissions add nothing to the record. The Court is notconsidering the supplemental submissions. First, the Trust did not seek leave to file such submissions. In addition,the purpose for granting a motion to file a surreply is to afford a party the opportunity to address arguments firstraised in the opposing party’s reply. Alexander v. FBI, 186 F.R.D. 71, 74 (D.D.C. 1998). Here, the issues addressedin the surreply were not first raised in the reply. Rather, the arguments in the reply were responses by the DaimlerEntities to issues raised by the Trust in its opposition papers. See Travelers Ins. Co. v. Buffalo Reins.Co., 735 F.Supp. 492, 495-96 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), vacated in part on other grounds, 739 F. Supp. 209 (S.D.N.Y 2004) (grantingmotion to strike surreply because “[a]lthough defendants’ reply papers addressed issues not raised in its movingpapers, each point in the reply brief directly responds to an issue raised in [the other party’s] opposition papers”). Here, the Trust first addressed the viability of the intercompany receivable in its opposition papers, and then soughtto reargue that issue and supplement it in the surreply. Moreover, the Trust had a full and fair opportunity to respondat the Hearing to the reply, as well as to the Court’s inquiries that flowed from issues regarding the intercompanyreceivable. In addition, nothing was raised in the reply or at the Hearing that would warrant any further submissionsconcerning the tax issues.
7
A hearing (the “Hearing”) concerning the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
was conducted on March 8, 2011.6
Motion to Dismiss Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) is incorporated into bankruptcy
procedure by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rule”) 7012(b). In
considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief, the court
“must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint.” Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L. Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (citations omitted).
In addition, the court draws all reasonable inferences from the factual allegations in favor of the
plaintiff. Walker v. City of New York, 974 F.2d 293, 298 (2d Cir. 1992) (citation omitted);
Myvett v. Williams, 638 F. Supp. 2d 59, 64 (D.D.C. 2009).
In considering such a motion, although a court accepts all the factual allegations in the
complaint as true, the court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a
factual allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S. Ct. 2932, 2944, 92 L. Ed.2d
209 (1986). Bare assertions, “devoid of ‘further factual enhancement[,]’” are not sufficient to
8
withstand a motion to dismiss. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173
L. Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citation omitted).
Moreover, the factual allegations must contain more than a mere “suspicion” that the
claim can be legally recognized. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at 1965 (citation
omitted). Rather, the factual allegations must plausibly suggest that the defendant is liable for
the conduct that is alleged. See id. at 557, 127 S.Ct. at 1966.
Thus, in considering a motion to dismiss, a court first identifies those allegations that are
actually legal conclusions and, therefore, “not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Iqbal, 127 S.
Ct. at 1950. The court then determines whether the remaining well-pleaded factual allegations,
which are assumed to be true, “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id.
As noted, to adequately support the claim, there must be sufficient facts identified to
suggest that the legally vulnerable conduct is plausible. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. at
1965. A complaint meets the plausibility standard when factual content is pled “that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal, ___ U.S. at ___, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. In determining whether a complaint states a plausible
claim for relief, a court focuses on the context of the allegations and “draw[s] on its judicial
experience and common sense. Iqbal, ___ U.S. at ____, 129 S. Ct. at 1950.
Although requiring plausibility “does not impose a probability requirement at the
pleading stage[,]” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S. Ct. at 1965, nevertheless, it requires “more
than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. If the
factual allegations “are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, [the complaint] stops short
of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Id. (citation and internal
9
quotations omitted).
Once the plausibility threshold is met, the complaint survives even if the identified facts
seem improbable or recovery is thought to be remote or unlikely. See Twombly, 550 U. S. at
556, 127 S.Ct. at 1965. Although Twombly was decided in the context of an antitrust litigation,
the plausibility standard to test the sufficiency of a complaint applies in all civil actions. Iqbal,
___ U.S. at ___, 129 S.Ct. at 1953 (discussing the applicability of Twombly). The plausibility
standard, however, does “not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S. Ct. at
1974. Thus, “once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set
of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint.” Id. at 563, 127 S. Ct. at 1969.
“Although bald assertions and conclusions of law are insufficient, the pleading standard
is nonetheless a liberal one.” Cooper v. Parsky, 140 F.3d 433, 440 (2d Cir. 1998); see also
Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94, 127 S. Ct. at 2200 (noting that Rule 8(a)(2) sets forth “liberal pleading
standards”). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), which is made applicable to adversary proceedings by
Bankruptcy Rule 7008, in asserting a claim, the pleader need only set forth a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. The purpose of the statement
is to provide “fair notice” of the claim and “the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson, 551 U.S.
at 93, 127 S. Ct. at 2200 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at 1964 (quoting, in turn,
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S. Ct. 99, 103, 2 L. Ed.2d 80 (1957). Thus, specific facts
are not necessary. Id.
While detailed factual allegations are not necessary, the need to provide the “grounds”
for entitlement to relief requires “more than labels and conclusions” and more than “a formulaic
10
recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at 1964-
65. The allegations must show that the right to relief is more than speculative. See id. at 553,
127 S. Ct. at 1965. There must be a “reasonably founded hope” that the discovery process will
uncover relevant evidence. Id. at 559, 563 n.8, 127 S. Ct. 1967, 1969 n.8.
Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a ‘showing,’ rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to
relief.” Id. at 555 n.3, 127 S. Ct. at 1965 n.3 (citation omitted). However, once the claim is
adequately supported, specific facts beyond those needed to state the claim are not necessary.
See Id. at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1973-74. Indeed, other sections of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure support a simplified notice pleading standard, including Rule 8(f), which provides that
technical forms of pleading or motions are not required, and Rule 8(e)(1), which provides that
pleadings are to be construed in a way that does substantial justice. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema
N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 513-14, 122 S. Ct. 992, 998, 152 L. Ed.2d 1 (2002). The simplicity required
by the rule, in forgoing additional factual detail, recognizes the ample opportunity afforded for
discovery and other pre-trial procedures, which permit the parties to obtain more detail as to the
basis of the claim and as to the disputed facts and issues. Id. at 512-13, 122 S. Ct. at 998;
see also Conley, 355 U.S. at 47-48, 78 S. Ct. at 103. Based upon the liberal pleading standard
established by Rule 8(a), even the failure to cite a statute, or to cite the correct statute, will not
affect the merits of the claim. Northrop v. Hoffman of Simsbury, Inc., 134 F.3d 41, 46 (2d Cir.
1997). In considering a motion to dismiss, it is not the legal theory but, rather, the factual
allegations that matter. Id.
In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court may consider the allegations in the
complaint; exhibits attached to the complaint or incorporated therein by reference; matters
11
amenable to judicial notice, Brass v. Am. Film Techs., Inc., 987 F.2d 142, 150 (2d Cir. 1993);
and a document of which plaintiff has notice and relied upon in bringing the claim or that is
integral to the claim. See Cortec Indus. v. Sum Holding, L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 48 (2d Cir. 1991).
However, mere notice or possession of the document is not sufficient. Chambers v. Time
Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 153 (2d Cir. 2002). Rather, a necessary prerequisite for a court’s
consideration of a document is that the plaintiff relied “on the terms and effect of a document in
drafting the complaint.” Id. As such, the document relied upon in framing the complaint is
considered to be merged into the pleading. Id. at 153 n.3 (citation omitted). In addition, even
for documents that are integral to a complaint, it must be clear that there is no dispute concerning
the authenticity, accuracy, or relevance of such document. DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable, L.L.C.,
622 F.3d 104, 111 (2d Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
In contrast, when assessing the sufficiency of a complaint, a court does not consider
extraneous material because considering such material would run counter to the liberal pleading
standard, which requires only a short and plain statement of the claim showing entitlement to
relief. Chambers, 282 F.3d at 154. Nevertheless, in deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court
may consider facts as to which the court may properly take judicial notice under Federal Rule of
Evidence 201. In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 273 F. Supp. 2d 351, 357, 357 n.13 (S.D.N.Y.
2003) (citing Chambers, 282 F.3d at 153).
To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff only has to allege sufficient facts, not prove
them. Koppel v. 4987 Corp., 167 F.3d 125, 133 (2d Cir. 1999). A court’s role in ruling on a
motion to dismiss is to evaluate the legal feasibility of the complaint, not to weigh the evidence
which may be offered to support it. Cooper, 140 F.3d at 440. The determination is not whether
7After this acquisition, and up until the restructuring that resulted in Daimler’s sale of its majority interest inthe Chrysler Companies, the various component Chrysler Companies were renamed DaimlerChrysler.
12
a claimant will ultimately prevail, but whether the claimant should be allowed to offer evidence
to support the claim. Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 511, 122 S. Ct. at 997.
The Restructuring and Sale of the Controlling Interest in the Chrysler Companies
In 1998, Daimler acquired 100% of the equity interest in the Chrysler Companies.7 In the
following years, the operations of the Chrysler Companies were combined with the operations of
other Daimler-owned brands and integrated within single subsidiaries. In late 2006, Daimler
decided to sell the Chrysler Companies. To assist in that effort, Daimler engaged JPMorgan
Chase (“JPMorgan”) and Ernst & Young LLP (“E&Y”) to restructure the Chrysler Companies.
Such restructuring included separating the Daimler and Chrysler operations, and effectuating the
“spin off” of its two most valuable subsidiaries (together, “FinCo”) that comprised the financial
services arm of the Chrysler Companies financing divisions. A restructuring plan comprised of
numerous steps was proposed. The ultimate goal was to allow Daimler to obtain the best price
for the contemplated sale of its interest in the Chrysler Companies. A higher price would result
from ensuring that FinCo’s assets were not available to CarCo’s creditors.
As a result of the restructuring, FinCo became a stand-alone entity to facilitate the ability
to obtain third-party financing. In one of the steps of the restructuring plan, FinCo was
transferred from CarCo to a newly formed holding company, DaimlerChrysler Holding LLC
(“Holding”). Daimler caused DC Holding to create Holding as a special purpose company
wholly owned by Daimler. Holding’s purpose was to provide a vehicle through which Daimler
8By moving the Chrysler operations into Holding, a purchaser could acquire the Chrysler operations byacquiring that single holding company. Holding remained wholly owned and controlled by Daimler until the August3, 2007 closing of the Cerberus transaction, pursuant to which Daimler sold the majority interest in Holding toCerberus.
9After the restructuring, the roles were reversed and CarCo became the parent of Motors.
10Motors sold and distributed to dealers both vehicles and parts. In addition, Motors managed warrantyclaims on vehicles manufactured by CarCo.
11The separation of CarCo from Motors allowed the enterprise to shift the assessment of taxable income forsales and marketing services to states with lower income tax rates.
13
could sell a controlling interest in the Chrysler Companies, including FinCo.8 Holding also
became CarCo’s parent, thereby converting the relationship between CarCo and FinCo from that
of parent-subsidiary to that of sister companies. As consideration for the transfer of FinCo,
CarCo received stock in DaimlerChrysler Motors Corporation (“Motors”), as well as another
entity, and a note from FinCo for $1.225 billion.
The stock of Motors comprised the large component of the consideration received by
CarCo as part of the transfer of FinCo. Prior to the restructuring, Motors was the parent of
Daimler Chrysler Corporation n/k/a CarCo.9 The two companies comprised the automotive
operations of the Chrysler Companies. CarCo was the manufacturer of vehicles and Motors
managed distribution and sales.10 (CarCo and Motors are together referred to as “Automotive”).
Motors generated revenue by selling to dealers those vehicles and parts that Motors purchased
from CarCo, thereby providing Motors with a stable profit and reducing CarCo’s income.
Automotive had been divided into two separate companies to take advantage of certain tax
benefits.11 In that regard, the relationship between the two companies was governed by a sale
and distribution agreement (the “S&D Agreement”), which CarCo could elect to terminate upon
giving six-months’ notice.
14
Daimler retained Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin Financial Advisors, Inc. (“Houlihan
Lokey”) to value the consideration exchanged in the step of the reorganization plan involving the
transfer of FinCo. In its valuation opinion, Houlihan Lokey valued FinCo and the related assets
transferred by CarCo at $7.95 billion. With respect to the assets transferred to CarCo in that step
of the restructuring plan, Houlihan Lokey valued Motors at $5.5 billion. CarCo also received a
$1.225 billion note, which, added to the value assigned to Motors, totals assets worth $6.725
billion.
In addition to separating FinCo from CarCo, several other steps of the restructuring
involved the transfer of assets from CarCo to companies controlled by Daimler. As a result of
the restructuring, Holding was the direct or indirect holder of the equity interests of the various
Chrysler Companies, including CarCo, FinCo, and Motors. Beginning around December 2006,
with the assistance of JP Morgan and E&Y, Daimler initiated efforts to solicit offers for the sale
of Automotive and FinCo. Five investors submitted bids, and the bid by Cerberus was the
highest one.
Thereafter, certain Daimler entities executed an agreement (the “Contribution
Agreement”) with an affiliate of Cerberus (hereinafter, the affiliate will also be referred to as
“Cerberus”). Daimler also executed the Contribution Agreement but solely as guarantor of the
performance of various Daimler entities that were participants to the Contribution Agreement.
The closing of the Contribution Agreement was on August 3, 2007. The fulfillment of all of the
restructuring steps was a condition precedent to Cerberus’s obligation to close on the
Contribution Agreement.
Pursuant to the Contribution Agreement, Cerberus acquired 80.1% of the equity of
15
Holding and, therefore, an indirect equity interest of an equal amount in the Chrysler Companies.
As a result, Daimler’s equity interest was diluted to 19.9%, thereby remaining a substantial
investor. In exchange for acquiring an 80.1% interest in the Chrysler Companies, Cerberus
made an equity contribution to the Chrysler Companies of $7.2 billion, a portion of which went
to CarCo. In addition, Cerberus obtained $12 billion in new debt financing for the Chrysler
Companies, consisting of $10 billion from large commercial and investment banks, a $1.5 billion
loan facility from an affiliate of Daimler, and a $0.5 billion loan facility from Cerberus. The
receipt of new debt financing was a condition to Cerberus’s obligation to close.
The Chrysler Companies also received other elements of value in the Cerberus
transaction, including the cancellation of approximately $3 billion net in intercompany debt; the
direct repayment in cash of $920 million of intercompany debt by Daimler to CarCo; the
repayment of third-party debt guaranteed by Daimler; the assignment of a $500 million tax
refund; and participation in numerous joint development, intellectual property, information
technology, supply and transition agreements by which the parties agreed to cooperate on
various projects.
The $7 billion recapitalization of the Chrysler Companies resulting from the Contribution
Agreement was distributed as follows: $1.212 billion was transferred from Holding to DC
Holding for certain expenses incurred in connection with the Cerberus transaction; $3.45 billion
was contributed to CarCo as equity; and $2.275 billion was contributed to FinCo as equity.
FinCo used $1.243 billion of this contribution to pay the principal and interest on the note that it
had previously issued to CarCo.
12As noted, in addition to the shortfall alleged with respect to the consideration paid for FinCo, the Trustargues that CarCo transferred other assets for little or no consideration. These other assets include a Mexicansubsidiary, DC Vehiculos Commerciales/DC Tractociamiones (“Newco Truck”), and a Mexico-based financialservices company that CarCo owned, DC Financial Services Mexico (“Newco Services”). The Trust arrives at the$1.695 billion dollar figure by comparing the $9.581 billion in value for the assets that it alleges CarCo surrenderedand the $7.886 billion value in assets that it alleges CarCo received as a result of the restructuring and the Cerberusacquisition. All of the Trust’s calculations are premised upon the values that the Trust attributes to the various assetsand includes only those assets that the Trust deems should be counted. The Trust’s enumerated lists are as follows:
Assets CarCo surrendered Value (in billions)FinCo (minimum value) $7.95Newco Truck $0.548Newco Services $0.383headquarters (minimum value) $0.7
Total $9.581Assets CarCo receivedCash contribution from Cerberus $3.45Note from FinCo $1.225Net Debt Forgiveness from Daimler $2.036Motors (maximum value) $0.450Tax Indemnification for Canadian pricing dispute $0.400payment for headquarters building $0.325
Total $7.886
16
Parties’ Contentions
As noted, in the Second Amended Complaint the Trust seeks to recover, as constructive
fraudulent conveyances, the value of the assets transferred from CarCo to the Daimler Entities.
The Trust alleges that the consideration received by CarCo as a result of the restructuring and
Cerberus acquisition was $1.695 billion less than the value of the assets that CarCo relinquished
in that overall transaction.12 The Daimler Entities move to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint, arguing that the Trust’s allegations are implausible. The Trust opposes that relief.
The Daimler Entities contend that the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint fail
to state a claim for constructive fraudulent transfer. First, the Daimler Entities assert that the
allegations regarding reasonably equivalent value or fair consideration are inadequate because
they do not sufficiently take into account all the elements of value received by CarCo in the
overall transaction.
17
The Daimler Entities argue that the Trust continues to undervalue or ignore assets and
benefits that CarCo received as part of the transaction. Specifically, with respect to
undervaluation, the Daimler Entities assert that, in the allegations, the Trust (i) attributes an
implausibly low value to Motors, (ii) understates the value of the credit facilities made available
to CarCo, (iii) understates the value of the tax benefits received by CarCo, and (iv) disregards the
value of the ancillary agreements conferred on CarCo. The Daimler Entities state that the
Trust’s allegation concerning the value of Motors is implausible, and that taking away that
allegation alone would eliminate the putative gap in the consideration received by CarCo. The
Daimler Entities argue that the Trust’s valuation of Motors is based on a faulty assumption that
there was a 100% probability that the S&D Agreement would be terminated. The Daimler
Entities assert that utilizing the $5.5 billion value attributed to Motors in the transaction by its
financial advisors, and even accepting as true all of the other values asserted by the Trust, would
result in an overall gain for CarCo of $3.375 billion.
Other elements of value that the Daimler Entities assert were undervalued or completely
ignored include (i) the repayment of intercompany debt, which the Daimler Entities argue
allowed CarCo to establish a strong net-cash position, (ii) the value of Daimler’s agreement to
establish National Sales Centers in countries where it had previously managed distribution for of
CarCo, as well as the value of related inventory of vehicles transferred to CarCo as part of that
arrangement, and (iii) the benefit to CarCo of Daimler’s undertaking to guarantee a certain
amount of CarCo’s pension obligations, particularly in its effect on forestalling the Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation from seeking additional contributions from CarCo.
The Daimler Entities also argue that, in the allegations of the Second Amended
18
Complaint, the Trust overstates the value of assets that CarCo transferred, including the
headquarters property. As part of the Cerberus Transaction, that property was sold in August
2007 to a Cerberus subsidiary for $325 million. The Daimler Entities assert that the $225
million mortgage obtained at the time Cerberus acquired the property is a more reliable indicator
of the property’s market value at the time of the sale, as a purchaser would maximize the size of
the mortgage. The Daimler Entities maintain that the $225 million mortgage amount is
consistent with the $325 million value attributed to the headquarters property. The Daimler
Entities contend that the valuations proffered by the Trust - a 2006 purchase offer that was not
pursued and a property tax assessment - are unreliable and have no bearing on the market value
at the time of the Cerberus Transaction.
In addition, the Daimler Entities contend that, as a general matter, the Trust’s theory is
implausible because of the participation of third-parties, which parties placed substantial
amounts of capital at risk dependent upon the performance of CarCo. The Daimler Entities point
to the participation by Cerberus, which made a $7.2 billion investment, a large portion of which
was directed to the restructured CarCo, as well as making a $500 million loan facility available
to CarCo. In addition, the Daimler Entities reference the lending syndicate that made a $10
billion credit facility available. The Daimler Entities argue that it is implausible that these
discerning investors, who had access to relevant financial information, would place these large
sums at risk if CarCo had been improperly stripped of its assets.
The Daimler Entities further argue that the Trust’s allegations of insolvency are
inadequate and implausible. The Daimler Entities contend that despite access to extensive data
that was produced during the Bankruptcy Rule 2004 discovery, and the Trust’s engagement of
19
experts, their allegations remain conclusory, illogical, inconsistent, and unsupported.
As previously noted, the Trust contends that the motion to dismiss should be denied and
that discovery should proceed. The Trust asserts that CarCo surrendered its most valuable asset -
FinCo - in exchange for Motors and a $1.225 billion note. With respect to the valuations it
attributes to the various components of the consideration, the Trust argues that (i) its allegation
that the value of Motors was $450 million is plausible, (ii) the credit facilities provided no
quantifiable benefit to CarCo, (iii) the tax benefits only conferred a $425 million benefit on
CarCo, and (iv) the ancillary agreements provided no net benefit to CarCo.
With respect to its valuation of Motors, the Trust maintains that Motors was worth no
more than $450 million to CarCo. The Trust argues that Houlihan Lokey’s $5.5 billion valuation
of Motors was fundamentally flawed because it did not account for the fact that Motors’ earnings
depended on the continuation of the S&D Agreement with CarCo, and that contract was
terminable at will by CarCo. The Trust argues that because CarCo had the right to terminate that
agreement on six-months’ notice, CarCo could have immediately terminated that agreement and
the income stream for that notice period would have totaled $430 million. The Trust further
argues that, thereafter, any tax benefits CarCo otherwise would have received from having
revenue reported at Motors could have been replicated by CarCo setting up a new subsidiary to
serve the same purpose, at a cost of $20 million. Adding this to the $430 million results in a
value of $450 million.
With respect to the other items that the Daimler Entities claim the Trust either
undervalues or ignores, the Trust contends that it has not omitted any assets from its fair
consideration analysis. The Trust argues that (i) the intercompany debt payment was off-set by a
20
larger payment in Daimler’s favor, (ii) the value of the National Sales Centers to CarCo was de
minimus, and (iii) the pension guarantee conferred no benefit on CarCo.
The Trust also argues that it plausibly alleges that CarCo undervalued its headquarters
building which it transferred in 2007 as part of the overall transaction. The Trust alleges that
instead of the $325 million for which the property was sold in 2007, it was worth at least $700
million. The Trust argues that even that valuation is conservative because the value may have
been as high as $1.2 billion. The Trust’s valuation of the property is based on a third-party offer
for the property received in 2006, the year before the Cerberus acquisition, and on property tax
assessments. The Trust argues that, at a minimum, the valuation of the headquarters property
involves questions of fact that are inappropriate to resolve on a motion to dismiss.
In addition, the Trust contends that it plausibly alleges that CarCo was insolvent after the
execution of the restructuring and the Cerberus acquisition.
Discussion
Counts I through III of the Second Amended Complaint allege that the transfers CarCo
made in the overall integrated transaction were constructively fraudulent under Bankruptcy Code
sections 544, 548 and 550, and New York Debtor and Creditor Law (“N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law”)
sections 273, 274 and 275. A transfer is constructively fraudulent only if the transferor was
insolvent at the time of, or was rendered insolvent by, the transfer and if reasonably equivalent
value under the Bankruptcy Code, or fair consideration under N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law, was not
received in exchange for the transfer. Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Metro Commc’ns, Inc., 945 F.2d
635, 648 (3d Cir. 1991); 11 U.S.C. § 548 (a)(1)(B); Murin v. Estate of Schwalen, 31 A.D.3d
1031, 1032, 819 N.Y.S.2d 341, 343 (N.Y. 2006); N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law 273.
13Under New York state law, in addition to requiring that the exchange be for equivalent value, fairconsideration requires that the conveyance be made in good faith. Murin, 31 A.D.3d at 1032, 819 N.Y.S.2d at 343. Some courts have indicated that the good faith at issue is that of the transferee, while at the same time questioningthe relevance of the concept of “good faith” in the context of a constructive fraudulent conveyance claim whereintent is not a consideration. Sharp Int’l Corp. v. State Street Bank & Trust Co. (In re State Street Bank & TrustCo.), 403 F.3d 43, 54 & n.4 (2d Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). In any event, in the instant matter, the transferee’sgood faith is not at issue as a result of the Court’s July 27 Opinion determining that the Trust’s allegations of actualfraud were implausible, thereby eliminating the possibility that the transferee could be found not to have acted ingood faith because of knowledge of any such fraud. See id. at 55 (quoting HBE Leasing Corp. v. Frank, 48 F.3d623, 636 (2d Cir. 1995) to the effect that the “good faith” statutory requirement is met if the transferee acts withoutknowledge - actual or constructive - of a fraudulent scheme). Moreover, the Trust alleges that the transferor and thetransferee were both controlled by Daimler; therefore, the Court’s July 27 Opinion concluding that the Trust’sallegations of actual fraud with respect to Daimler are implausible forecloses, under the circumstances as pled by theTrust, the possibility of a finding that the transferee was not acting in good faith.
21
Ordinarily, the burden of proof concerning whether a transfer was made for reasonably
equivalent value or fair consideration is on the creditor that seeks to have the conveyance set
aside as fraudulent. Metro Commc’ns, 945 F.2d at 650; MFS/Sun Life Trust-High Yield Series v.
Van Dusen Airport Servs. Co., 910 F. Supp. 913, 936-37 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (citations omitted); see
also Murin, 31 A.D.3d at 1032, 819 N.Y.S.2d at 343. For the consideration to be fairly
equivalent to the value of the property transferred or obligation assumed, the exchange does not
require exact equivalence. MFS/Sun, 910 F. Supp. at 937. Instead it is sufficient that the values
be “reasonably equivalent.”13 Id.
As previously noted, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint, affording the
Trust leave to replead, inter alia, the constructive fraudulent conveyance claims. To address the
Court’s cautionary statements concerning the need to attribute some value to even contingent
assets for the purposes of the reasonably equivalent value and fair consideration analysis, the
Trust proceeded to supply de minimus values to certain of the assets, while continuing to ignore
other elements of value that were transferred to CarCo.
Motors
As a result of the restructuring and Cerberus transaction, CarCo received the stock of
22
Motors. In the First Amended Complaint, the Trust attributed a zero value to Motors premised
upon its argument that the value of Motors was contingent upon the income stream from the
S&D Agreement, and the fact that CarCo had the right to immediately terminate that agreement.
In dismissing the First Amended Complaint, the Court indicated that discounting the value of
Motors to zero was inappropriate because, among other reasons, even contingent cash flows are
accorded value.
In the Second Amended Complaint, the Trust continues to assert that CarCo would
immediately terminate the S&D Agreement, premising this assertion on the allegation that
CarCo could replicate the operations of Motors by setting up a new subsidiary to perform the
same functions. The Trust assigns a value of $450 million to the benefit that CarCo obtained
from the acquisition of Motors. In recognition of the fact that any termination of the S&D
Agreement required six-months’ notice, the Trust makes allowance for the $430 million income
stream that would be generated during the notice period were CarCo to terminate the S&D
Agreement immediately. The additional $20 million of value is premised upon the alleged
administrative cost to establish a subsidiary to perform the same functions as Motors.
The Trust does not challenge the methodology employed by Houlihan Lokely in arriving
at its independent assessment of the proper valuation of Motors if the S&D Agreement were to
have stayed in effect for the duration of its term. Rather, it alleges that it was improper for the
financial advisor to assume that CarCo would not cancel the S&D Agreement. More
specifically, the Trust argues that Motors’ value should be based upon CarCo immediately
terminating the S&D Agreement, premised upon the alleged ease of replicating Motors’
operations for $20 million.
23
In support of its argument, the Trust asserts that whether the S&D Agreement would be
terminated must be viewed from the perspective of an independent third-party controlling the
process on behalf of CarCo. The Trust contends that any such party would want to increase
CarCo’s assets. Inasmuch as CarCo had the unilateral right to cancel the S&D Agreement,
reassert its right to those revenues, and have all of Motors’ dealer contracts reassigned to CarCo,
the Trust asserts that the income stream cannot be the basis for valuing Motors. The Trust’s
argument is that, because CarCo already controlled this revenue and could reclaim it at any time,
it did not need to surrender FinCo. The Trust argues that its analysis accurately reflects that
Motors was never worth $5.5 billion to CarCo, and that CarCo always could take over most of
the value of Motors. According to the Trust, any tax benefits obtained from the arrangement
with Motors could be replicated by setting up another subsidiary to serve the same purpose at a
cost of $20 million.
The Trust’s argument, however, is implausible and not supported by the record. The
Trust fails to account for billions of dollars of value in Motors, including a large vehicle and
parts inventory, as well as property, plant and equipment, and operating leases. In addition, the
allegations of the Second Amended Complaint are premised upon CarCo immediately
terminating a long-standing arrangement that provided tax benefits to CarCo. An immediate
termination of the S&D Agreement, however, is implausible given, among other things, the
$11.6 billion intercompany receivable that CarCo owed Motors, which related to sales and
distribution of cars manufactured by CarCo. This intercompany receivable provided Motors
with leverage concerning the substantial economic consequences that CarCo would have to
consider before deciding to terminate the S&D Agreement.
14The Court is cognizant of the limitations in the context of a motion to dismiss of utilizing informationobtained from the subsequent history to value the receivable at the time of the transaction. The subsequent pay-down of the receivable, however, is an indication that the receivable had economic significance at the time of thetransaction.
24
The Trust argues that this receivable was not a legitimate intercompany debt, but rather
an equity interest and that, in any event, CarCo did not have the wherewithal to pay the amount
due on the receivable. As such, the Trust argues that the receivable was not collectible and had
no value and, therefore, could not provide the basis to exert leverage against CarCo to continue
to honor the S&D Agreement.
With respect to the legitimacy of the receivable, in the context of this bankruptcy
proceeding, there are documents that are part of the public record, and of which the Court may
take judicial notice. In that regard, the bankruptcy filings of CarCo and Motors show that CarCo
treated the receivable as a liability in its filing, and that Motors treated it as an asset in its filing.
The Trust contends that the absence of a challenge to those characterizations is not significant
because CarCo’s financial conditions did not provide a monetary incentive to dispute them. Of
more importance in the public record, however, is the fact that, at the time of the filings in 2009,
the amount owing on the intercompany receivable had been reduced by approximately $2 billion.
This suggests that after the 2007 transaction, the receivable had been paid-down in that amount
and, therefore, that the receivable had economic significance at the time of the transaction and
was not worthless.14 Inasmuch as the receivable had value, it would have to be factored into any
analysis of whether to terminate the S&D Agreement.
Further, even if CarCo and Motors were independent of each other and were each
controlled by impartial third-parties, any decision by CarCo to refuse to honor its obligation on
the receivable logically would be met with substantial litigation initiated by Motors. In addition,
15Motors had an obligation to pay CarCo the wholesale value of the inventory upon its sale.
25
Motors held the inventory of cars and parts. Accordingly, for any amount payable to CarCo on
the inventory,15 Motors could attempt to set off that amount against the amount due on the
receivable. Thus, these factors provided a motivation for CarCo to continue to honor the S&D
Agreement. The ability to forestall efforts to enforce the intercompany receivable, which was
obtained by CarCo in acquiring Motors, was a benefit conferred upon CarCo.
Therefore, it is not plausible that a third-party controlling CarCo would conclude that it
simply could immediately terminate the S&D Agreement. Instead, such third-party would have
to assess the consequences of terminating the agreement and the attendant risk of any resulting
litigation concerning the receivable. As the Trust argues, it is proper to analyze the value of
Motors from the perspective of what an independent third-party owner of CarCo would be
willing to give up in value to acquire Motors. However, it is not correct to analyze the value of
Motors to CarCo from the perspective of an unrelated third-party seeking to purchase Motors
because certain synergies are involved particular to CarCo’s purchase of the entity. The value of
Motors is properly determined by inquiring what Motors was worth to any independent third-
party owners of CarCo. It is not plausible that any such owners would immediately terminate the
S&D Agreement because they would have to contend with a litigation concerning the receivable,
regardless of how it were subsequently characterized. Thus, it was of value for CarCo to acquire
Motors and forestall any immediate collection efforts on the receivable.
In addition, even if the S&D Agreement were terminated, CarCo would have to set up a
new subsidiary to provide the same tax benefits. This would entail building a new network,
reacquiring the inventory held by Motors, and myriad other tasks and costs to replicate the
16In that regard, even if a determination were made to terminate the S&D Agreement, it is implausible thatit could be accomplished in one-half year, given the long-established infrastructure that would have to be replicated.
26
plants, property, equipment and operating leases that Motors had in place. As previously noted,
after a cancellation of the S&D Agreement, any efforts to reacquire the inventory held by Motors
potentially could be met with an attempt to set off the substantial value of the inventory against
the receivable that CarCo owed Motors. In addition to all of these costs beyond the
administrative costs of setting up a subsidiary, it would take time to build an infrastructure of
that quality. CarCo and Motors had a long-standing relationship that was beneficial to CarCo
and, although Motors was re-incorporated in the late 1990's, prior to that and as previously
incorporated, Motors had functioned in the same capacity since the 1950's, in that all of the
enterprise’s direct sales agreements with dealers had been assigned to the then-Motors entity.
See Crawford Transp. Co. v. Chrysler Corp., 338 F.2d 934, 936 (6th Cir. 1964) (referencing
Chrysler having organized Chrysler Motors Corporation in 1956 and assigning to it all of the
direct sales agreements with dealer); see also York Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Credit
Corp., 447 F.2d 786, 791 (5th Cir. 1971) (referencing the role of Chrysler Motors Corporation in
distributing and marketing Chrysler products). The Trust does not account for the major
disruptive effect on the enterprise that would have to accompany any immediate attempt to
replicate Motors.16 Further, the notion that a network and its attendant assets and relationships,
capable of generating $5.5 billion in value, could be duplicated for $20 million is not plausible.
Therefore, the $450 million figure posited by the Trust stems from an oversimplified analysis
that fails to account for factors necessary to a determination of whether immediate termination
17The Trust argues that its allegation of the value of Motors must be accepted as true for the purposes of themotion to dismiss. As previously noted, however, the Trust is not disputing the methodology used by HoulihanLokey to value Motors if the S&D Agreement remained in effect. Rather, what the Trust argues is that the S&DAgreement would be immediately terminated. Based upon the record of the case, that allegation is implausible.
27
was a plausible course of action.17
The Trust has the burden concerning the issue of whether CarCo received reasonably
equivalent value or fair consideration in the transaction; however, the $450 million value
attributed to Motors by the Trust is absurd. Thus, discounting the implausible argument
concerning the value of Motors, by itself, eliminates the $1.695 billion shortfall in consideration
received by CarCo asserted by the Trust. Nevertheless, there are other elements of value that
were also not factored into the Trust’s analysis.
The Credit Facilities
As part of the overall restructuring and Cerberus transaction, approximately $12 billion
in credit facilities were made available to CarCo: a $10 billion credit facility from a group of
banks; a $1.5 billion loan facility from a Daimler affiliate, and a $500 million loan facility from a
Cerberus affiliate. The Trust attributes no value to the access to funding provided by these
facilities. The Trust further argues that even if CarCo benefitted from the credit facilities, the
amount of such benefit cannot be quantified at this stage of the proceedings, and that any such
measure would require a trial.
Notwithstanding the Trust’s argument to the contrary, access to the availability of
billions of dollars in capital provides a benefit to an automobile manufacturer. Among other
things, the $12 billion in credit facilities offered the opportunity to develop new product lines
and promote older lines. Thus, the funds afforded a benefit by facilitating continued operations
or expansion of business. Moreover, the record of this case shows that the access to this capital
28
provided a benefit to CarCo by facilitating its negotiations with unions and representatives of the
retirees. The success of the latter negotiations resulted in the funding of a VEBA trust and the
additional benefit of allowing CarCo to remove the OPEB liabilities from its balance sheet. The
substantial capital made available to CarCo by the credit facilities was even more valuable in
light of the tight credit market during that period of time. In this regard, the Daimler Entities cite
to a document included by the Trust in its submissions that references the freeze in the credit
markets in the period leading up to the Cerberus transaction.
In support of its position, the Trust referenced the July 27 Opinion, where the Court
delineated certain of the direct and indirect values that were absent from the Trust’s assessment
and stated that the availability of the credit facility “could result in an indirect benefit if shown to
facilitate additional business opportunities.” See MFS/Sun, 910 F. Supp. 2d at 937; see also Off.
Comm. of Unsec. Creds. of M. Fabrikant & Sons, Inc. v. JP Morgan Chase, N.A. (In re M.
Fabrikant & Sons, Inc.), 394 B.R. 721, 738 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008) (noting that indirect benefits
may include increased access to capital).” While the Court cited to an example of where a credit
facility would supply value, it was not the Court’s intent to restrict such value determinations
only to instances where indirect value was received from new business opportunities. Rather,
the Court recognizes that “[t]he ability to borrow money has considerable value in the
commercial world.” Metro Commc’ns, 945 F.2d at 647. In addition to the business
opportunities that such borrowing ability may make available, it may also afford “other
imponderable[s] in the operation or expansion of [a] business.” Id. An imponderable is an item
that is difficult to estimate or measure. Therefore, the value to be placed on this ability to
borrow money depends not only upon the business opportunities made available, but also on
29
other measures that are difficult to quantify that facilitate the operation or expansion of the
business. Moreover, the court in Mellon Bank v. Off. Comm. of Unsec. Creds. (In re R.M.L.,
Inc.), 92 F.3d 139, 151 (3d Cir. 1996), citing to Metro Communications, noted that intangible
benefits that are not susceptible to precise calculation can be deemed to have provided value at
the time of the transaction, even if they later failed to materialize. Nor was the Court in the July
27 Opinion ruling out the potential for a credit facility to afford a direct benefit.
In any event, for the purposes of its motion to dismiss, the Daimler Entities are not
seeking a ruling quantifying the exact amount of benefit conferred upon CarCo by the credit
facilities. Instead, they reference the implausibility of the Trust’s contention that CarCo received
no value, or insignificant value, from the availability of $12 billion from the credit facilities.
Indeed, it cannot be seriously disputed that the availability of $12 billion in credit has value,
which, even if an indirect benefit, could have been quantified.
Tax Benefits
The Trust values the benefit to CarCo from certain tax agreements it had with Daimler at
$400 million, based upon a $425 million reserve set aside for Daimler’s responsibility to
indemnify CarCo for certain Canadian tax obligations. However, Daimler had an unlimited
indemnity obligation concerning the Canadian tax disputes. Thus, the amount of the reserve was
not intended to cap or limit Daimler’s responsibility to indemnify CarCo.
The Daimler Entities reference a form they filed concerning their financial information
and performance (Chrysler Grp., General Form for Registration of Securities (Form 10) (Feb. 25,
2011), which is a public record that makes clear that Daimler has already paid in excess of $700
million with respect to the Canadian tax obligations. In addition, that document also estimates
30
Daimler’s future responsibility on that obligation at over one billion dollars. Thus, the Daimler
Entities maintain that the Trust only valued a portion of this benefit, which is much more than
$400 million.
In the context of this motion to dismiss, the Court is limited in what it may consider to
determine the value of the tax benefits. The public record concerning the outcome of the parties
dispute with respect to the tax benefits suggests that the tax benefits did have greater value than
the amount of the reserve. However, based upon the tax reserve information of record that was
available at the time of the transaction, it cannot be said that the Trust’s allegation concerning
the value of the tax benefits is implausible.
Nevertheless, even if the $400 million valuation based upon the reserve at the time of the
transaction is plausible, and without considering any added value provided by the tax benefits,
CarCo received sufficient value in the overall transaction to render implausible the Trust’s
allegations of lack of reasonable value or fair consideration.
Ancillary Agreements
CarCo and the Daimler Entities entered into forty-nine ancillary agreements as part of the
overall transaction, and the Trust applies a zero value to these agreements. The docket of the
case, however, reflects that most of these agreements must have had value to CarCo. First, New
Chrysler, the new enterprise that emerged from the bankruptcy, assumed thirty-eight of those
agreements, which is an indication of value. Further, during the course of the case, New
Chrysler filed an action against Daimler concerning one of the agreements, alleging that
Daimler’s failure to perform on that agreement would threaten the viability of the business of
one of the Debtors. This shows that the ancillary agreement was critical to the ongoing success
31
of the new enterprise. Thus, the agreements had value and it is implausible to suggest that they
had no value.
Other Elements of Value
As part of the overall transaction, a $920 million intercompany debt was repaid to CarCo.
This repayment was separate and apart from the netting out of intercompany debt. The Daimler
Entities contend that this was real money made available to CarCo that enhanced its cash
position.
The Trust asserts that no value was received from the repayment of the receivable
because it was balance-sheet neutral. In addition, the Trust argues that certain one-month short
term loans made by Daimler to CarCo during the course of the overall transaction that were
immediately repaid should be netted from the receivable repaid to CarCo.
While it is true that the repayment of the $920 million receivable was balance-sheet
neutral, it nonetheless provided cash availability, which represents added value. Moreover,
unlike the short-term loans that were repaid by CarCo to Daimler, the intercompany receivable
paid to CarCo was based upon a pre-existing receivable. CarCo benefitted by liquidating a
receivable, while the payment by CarCo to Daimler was a very short-term, cash-in/cash-out
transaction.
CarCo also received value in the form of the national sales companies (“NSC’s”), which
were Daimler’s overseas distribution facilities, and the $1 billion in inventory that was
transferred to CarCo as part of the transfer of the NSC’s. The value of that inventory was not
included in the valuation of those sales companies.
The Trust argues that the net value to CarCo from the $1 billion in inventory was
32
negligible because any sale of the inventory carried a corresponding obligation to pay most of
the proceeds to CarCo.
Although there was a cost incurred to liquidate the inventory, nevertheless, CarCo
received value from Daimler having provided the $1 billion in inventory. The $900 million to
operate the NSC’s included the purchase of additional inventory and, therefore, cannot be
applied entirely to offset the value of the inventory furnished by Daimler.
In addition, Daimler guaranteed up to $1 billion of CarCo’s PBGC obligations, which
guarantee was subsequently monetized to $600 million in a later settlement agreement. The
Trust argues that this did not provide value because Daimler actually reduced its overall
exposure on PBGC obligations from $4.5 billion to $1 bilion.
The $1 billion guarantee, however, provided immediate value to CarCo because it
reduced the amount of payments otherwise required by the PBGC on an ongoing basis. It
reduced CarCo’s need to immediately seek more funding because the PBGC agreed to reduce
CarCo’s periodic obligations as a result of the guarantee.
Headquarters Property
In their motion to dismiss, the Daimler Entities also contend that the Trust overvalues the
value of property that was transferred out of CarCo in the transaction. Specifically, the Trust
references CarCo’s transfer of the headquarters property to a Cerberus subsidiary in August 2007
for $325 million. The Trust alleges a $700 million value for this property, which the Trust
maintains is a conservative valuation when considering a 2006 purchase offer for the property
for $1.2 billion and a 2006 tax assessment.
The Daimler Entities argue the measures utilized by the Trust do not reflect the market
18There is no allegation that the Daimler Entities did not act in such accord.
33
price for the property in August 2007, especially when considering the decline in the real estate
values in 2007. The Daimler Entities argue that the $225 million mortgage that was obtained for
the property provides a more reliable indicator of the value of the property at the time of the sale.
The Daimler Entities contend that based upon a buyer’s motivation to maximize the amount of
the loan, it is not plausible that the value of the property was in excess of the $325 million
purchase price.
While a factual issue may be present concerning the appropriate value of the property in
the range between $325 million and $700 million, the $1.2 million valuation is not plausible.
First, in the context of the acquisition of a commercial property where the purchaser would seek
to maximize the amount of the mortgage,18 the amount of the mortgage obtained at the time of
the transfer was a contemporaneous market assessment of the value of the property. The fact
that the mortgage was $225 million eliminates consideration of the $1.2 billion as the value of
the property, as that would reflect a mortgage of only approximately 18% of the value.
Moreover, even the high range nearing the $700 million mark would be at odds with a mortgage
of that value. Nevertheless, even if one were to accept that a factual issue was presented
concerning the value of the headquarters, up to the $700 million value posited by the Trust, that
premise would imply the potential for up to $375 million of additional value that was transferred
by CarCo. However, the value of assets received by CarCo in the overall transaction, for which
the Trust failed to account, would more than offset this additional value.
As previously noted, the creditor who seeks to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent,
generally, has the burden of proof on the issue of whether such transfer was made for reasonably
19Inasmuch as the Court has determined that the Trust’s allegations concerning lack of reasonablyequivalent value or fair consideration in the overall transaction are implausible, the Court does not address theallegations concerning solvency.
34
equivalent value or fair consideration. The allegations must show that a right to relief is beyond
the merely speculative. The Trust’s allegations that CarCo did not receive reasonably equivalent
value in the overall transaction are not supported by the record and are implausible as a general
matter.19
The record of this case shows that the Trust’s allegations concerning the asset valuations
that CarCo received in the transaction are implausible. First, the record of the case shows that it
is implausible that CarCo would immediately terminate the S&D Agreement with Motors. At a
minimum, even if a decision were made to terminate the agreement, it would take a substantial
period of time to replicate the infrastructure and network associated with the enterprise.
Moreover, the Trust’s analysis does not account for billions of dollars in vehicle and parts
inventory, nor does it account for operating leases.
In addition, the Trust’s analysis does not attribute any value to the access to funding
afforded by the credit facilities. There is no question that the ability to access credit is of
substantial value in the commercial world, especially where the facilities make available $12
billion in funding. Further, the record of this case shows that it is implausible to assert that the
ancillary agreements did not provide value. The agreements provided substantial value at the
time of transaction, and thereafter were shown to be critical to the ongoing enterprise. While
certain of these valuations cannot be readily quantified, it cannot be seriously disputed that they
provided substantial value.
The Trust’s allegations concerning the gap in the consideration given and received by
20Although the result of the overall transaction may have been to enhance FinCo’s value by separating itfrom CarCo, when one takes into account the involvement of all of these sophisticated parties, including Daimler, itdoes not plausibly lead to the conclusion that CarCo was the subject of fraudulent conveyances.
35
CarCo in the overall transaction are not plausible. Moreover, the allegations ignore the
contemporaneous market information concerning the involvement of other sophisticated parties
in the transactions. Indeed, the allegations are implausible in the context of the involvement of
Cerberus, who paid billions of dollars in the transaction, the United Automobile Workers union,
which accepted warrants in the restructured enterprise, the PBGC, which negotiated settlements
with Carco, and the banks, which made available billions of dollars to CarCo. The Trust’s
allegations would require an inference that all of these parties were led astray. It is implausible
that these sophisticated parties, who had access to the same financial information as Daimler,
would invest and rely on the wherewithal of CarCo if it had been stripped of its assets and were
unable to sustain its operations.20
Finally, this is a case where full 2004 discovery powers were available to the Trust and to
its predecessor in interest, the Creditors’ Committee. Substantial investigation took place and
there was a full and fair opportunity to attempt to present a sustainable complaint. Moreover,
even within that context, upon determining that the overall transaction should be considered as
one integrated transaction, and upon dismissing the First Amended Complaint, the Court
afforded the Trust an opportunity to replead certain counts, including the constructive fraud
counts. Thereafter, the Trust continued to have access to all prior discovery, nonetheless, it
failed to cure the deficiencies in the allegations, and the Court dismisses the constructive fraud
counts of the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.
36
Additional Claims
Count IV and V of the Complaint, which allege unjust enrichment and alter ego liability,
respectively, are premised upon the allegations of the earlier Counts, including the absence of
reasonably equivalent value or fair consideration. Count V of the Complaint alleging alter ego
liability was pled for the purpose of making Daimler accountable for any liability of the other
Daimler Entities. As the Court has dismissed the constructive fraud counts with prejudice,
accordingly, these counts are also dismissed with prejudice.
Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
The Daimler Entities are to settle an order consistent with this Opinion.
Dated: New York, New York May 12, 2011
/s/ Arthur J. Gonzalez CHIEF UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE